Cliff Kincaid tells the sobering truth at AIM:
Conservative thinker and strategist Paul Weyrich sees a Republican political disaster in 2008 because of Iraq. "I believe that the Democrats, most likely with Senator Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY) as the nominee, will win," he says. "The Republicans, regardless of who they nominate, will lose because of the war in Iraq. Voters want to punish the Republicans for Iraq."It's easy to see how this might develop. But the backlash could get even worse when members of the conservative Republican base begin to grasp how the Bush policy has led to the virtual destruction of the Christian community in Iraq. It is nothing less than an outrage for this to be occurring under the auspices of a conservative Republican President who claims to be a born-again Christian.
But Iraq isn't the only problem like this. Bush is now working with the U.N. to create a Muslim state in Kosovo.
On July 25, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom held a major hearing on religious persecution in Iraq that made your stomach turn. It effectively demonstrated that American soldiers, many of them Christians, are giving their lives and limbs to prop up a Muslim government that encourages or tolerates religious persecution against Christians. Michael Cromartie, chairman of the group and an appointee of President Bush, said reports indicate that nearly half of Iraq's Christians have already fled the country.He explained that "Violence against members of Iraq's Christian community is of particular concern in Baghdad and the northern Kurdish regions. Reported abuses include the assassination of Christian religious leaders, the bombing and destruction of churches, and violent threats intended to force Christians from their homes. In some areas, ordinary Christians have reportedly stopped participating in public religious services for fear of inviting further violence."
Pascale Warda, an Assyrian Christian who was the Minister of Migration and Displacement during the first transitional Iraqi government, testified, "Over 30 churches have been destroyed, priests have been kidnapped, killed, or beheaded, and the Christians have been systematically targeted for persecution by Islamic fundamentalists. A 14-year-old boy was crucified in Basra. A one-year-old baby was roasted and delivered to his mother's doorstep, on a bed of rice."
The dramatic hearing was covered by a few specialized news organizations, such as Catholic News Service, but the major media ignored it.
Writing on Front Page magazine, in an article headlined, 'The Death of Iraq's Christians," analyst Doug Bandow contended that "Washington has done essentially nothing" to help these people.
"Christian America may soon be the death of Iraqi Christians," he wrote. "The irony is extraordinary: America, a nation with deep Christian roots, has inadvertently loosed the vicious forces bent on destroying Iraqi Christians."
While this may sound harsh, it was confirmed by testimony before the commission. Michael Youash, project director of the Iraq Sustainable Democracy Project, said that the U.S. Government's "lack of action, even proper acknowledgment of the matter is most regrettable." He said there is an "inability or unwillingness" to confront the fact that Christians and others are being persecuted and murdered in Iraq.
He stated, "As an indigenous, religious and ethnic minority, in Iraq, liberation held that we might not only share in that dream but fully realize it. For a variety of reasons, we are today trapped in a nightmare…We are creating a dictatorship out of an enormous American sacrifice to liberate Iraq from tyranny."
President Bush was lectured on the problem by Pope Benedict XVI during their meeting on June 9. Bush said the pontiff was worried that Christians in Iraq were being "mistreated by the Muslim majority." Bush did not say whether he agreed with the Pope's concerns. However, about three weeks later, Bush rededicated The Islamic Center of Washington and announced that he will appoint a special envoy to the Organization of The Islamic Conference.
One problem stems from the constitution for Iraq, crafted with U.S. help, that established a Muslim state. Many of us warned at the time that the document could help lead to crushing non-Muslim religions and their followers.
Conservatives who supported this war have to face the present-day reality that not only are U.S. troops fighting and dying to maintain a pro-Iranian Muslim government in power in Iraq, but that Iran has emerged as the big winner in the region and the world as a result. What's more, it looks like the Bush Administration has no will to confront Iran over killing our soldiers in Iraq or building nuclear weapons. As a result, the administration now wants to sell Saudi Arabia billions of dollars worth of arms so it can confront or contain Iran. Yet, Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, says that Saudi Arabia is undermining U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq.
It also looks like China is emerging as another winner in Iraq. Incredibly, after returning from a state visit to China, Iraq President Jalal Talabani announced that his government was going to buy weapons from the Chinese for Iraqi police forces. China also agreed to cancel Iraqi debt. The two countries signed deals on economic cooperation and China is seeking an agreement to develop Iraqi oil fields.
Yet Talabani is supposed to be one of our strongest allies inside the Iraqi government.
As the old saying goes, "with friends like these, who needs enemies?"
Those conservatives who insist that the U.S. can still win in Iraq have to explain the increasing reports about the U.S. Government facilitating the entry into the U.S. of Iraqis who worked with the U.S. It was reported in June that Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador in Baghdad, wants immigrant visas given to all Iraqis employed by the U.S. Government in Iraq because of fears that they will leave the country unless they are assured they can come here.
This was a significant change in policy and signals a major deterioration of the situation. Last year, Arthur E. "Gene" Dewey, who was Bush's assistant secretary of state for refugee affairs, was quoted as saying that "for political reasons the administration will discourage" the resettlement of Iraqi refugees in the United States "because of the psychological message it would send, that it is a losing cause."
The best evidence of it being a losing cause came when Khalilzad recently wrote a New York Times op-ed arguing that the corrupt United Nations ought to take a bigger role in Iraq and basically run the country with U.S. financial and other support. As I noted in a recent column, he essentially adopted the liberal Democratic approach to Iraq, absent the demand for a timetable for withdrawal. This difference is really much ado about nothing because it seems only a matter of time, probably months, before U.S. troops start coming home. It will be done under the cover of a U.N. takeover.
As the Iraqis, perhaps hundreds of thousands of them, start emigrating to the U.S., we will be faced with another problem: the prospect that some may be secret al-Qaeda or Iranian operatives bent on committing terrorist acts against Americans. One doesn't have to wonder what the response of conservative Republicans to this immigration problem will be.
Compounding the catastrophe in Iraq, Bush is also going along with the U.N. in Kosovo, which they want to make into an independent Muslim state by separating the province from Serbia. Kosovo is mostly Albanian and Muslim and Serbia is Christian. Christian churches are being destroyed in Kosovo and Christians are being forced to flee. Bush has indicated no concern about that state of affairs, either.
A new book (PDF) on the subject, Hiding Genocide in Kosovo: A Crime Against God and Humanity, deserves to be read and understood before Bush makes a final fateful decision on Kosovo that could ultimately dwarf the mess in Iraq. In Kosovo, like Iraq, we are witnessing the sacrifice of a Christian community. Islamic dominance of Europe is the goal here.
There's more at stake, of course, than the future of the Republican Party, and Bush going down in history as the Republican Jimmy Carter. In the name of promoting freedom and democracy, Bush will have accelerated and acquiesced in the spread of global Jihad that ultimately targets America itself for destruction.
The question that Republicans will then have to ask, in order to change the subject and try to win the 2008 presidential and congressional elections, will be whether another President Clinton and the Democrats should be trusted to safeguard our security.
Weyrich, who foresees a Hillary victory, has accurately predicted the outcomes of presidential elections for decades with only two exceptions. But this prediction comes many months before the presidential primaries begin and before Republicans in Congress, those running for president, and those across the nation take advantage of an opportunity to disavow their own President. That way, the public backlash against the war may be directed at the President, but not Republicans in general. It is a gamble but Republicans may see such a course as the only way to keep Hillary out of the White House and keep things from getting even worse.
"Islamic dominance of Europe is the goal here."
Libyan Nuclear Extortion Update: Der Spiegel details the brutal torture Kaddafi used to blackmail the West;
Incredibly, The Center for Nursing Advocacy is asking nurses to send letters thanking Libya for releasing their brutally tortured nurse hostages;/dhimmitude on stiltsI'm a nominal Republican, but did not vote for President Bush in either election, choosing to throw my vote away supporting 3rd party candidates. Mr. Bush has been a disaster for the Nation, not just the Republican Party, by wasting American blood and money in Iraq, and choosing not to control America's borders. Unfortunately Gore and Kerry probably would have been even worse. I will be sorry to see the United States take in any Iraqi refugees.
Well since many voters vote for who they "think will win" , the more people say she "will win" the better chance of the self fulfilling prophecy coming true.
I vote for who I want to win, that's just the way I roll. Old school.
What about that: Islam is evil. Bush is evil. Naturally Bush is attracted to Islam and a camouflaged follower. Almost everything he does weakens the West and emboldens Islam.
"I believe that the Democrats, most likely with Senator Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY) as the nominee, will win," he says. "The Republicans, regardless of who they nominate, will lose because of the war in Iraq. Voters want to punish the Republicans for Iraq."
--from the article--
Sobering truth indeed.
Mr. Bush has been a disaster for the Nation, not just the Republican Party, by wasting American blood and money in Iraq, and choosing not to control America's borders.
Posted by: MP at July 31, 2007 2:49 PM
Slight correction: Bush has actively toiled to keep the borders open, which is choosing to not control America's borders, but only more. From day 1 Bush's top priority was "immigration reform". But the seeds of his agenda were sown much before he came to office. Being raised by mexican nannies, Jeb married to a Mexican and close "friendship" with Vicente Fox did not happen overnight. Add to that "Family values do not stop at Rio Grande": http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Immigration.htm ... as though Mexican "family values" are superior to American family values (never mind Mexicans rape American children and murder American citizens: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2217935920070622?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true )
Nothing would stop Bush's illegal immigration" agenda" (hiding behind "family values" are pesos for businesses and votes for the party). Add to that prosecution of American Border Patrol agents http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52545 granting immunity to a drug dealer, pretty much tell you that it was more than choosing not to control American borders.. I mean, yes, you are right, but it was not only neglect, but active participation in ensuring open borders, if you see the difference.
Alert - You Sir, are correct. W, like Daddy is a one-worlder.
'voters want to punish Republicans for Iraq'....
I think that is true of many Democrats and a few Republicans, but not all. I believe the UNREPORTED story is that the Republican and Indepedant voters don't have any Conservative People to vote for that have a backbone.
Voters don't want a politician, they want a person that sees more black and white, instead of a field of grey.
Voters will rally around a person that is willing to LOSE (not win) the election based on their conservative stance that is unpopular in the media and the political correct circles. Or otherwards, a person that will not tell us what we have heard and we know you will not do. Instead, tell us what we have not heard, what needs to be done and no one has done in 50 years, will cause conflict and you will do it.
This election is not lost, only backbones.
Just, noone paid attention to her but Wafa Sultan observed how Bush promotes global Jihad in November, 2006: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52962 And this was before Bush increased visas for Saudi students (never mind most 9/11 hijackers were on student's visas), arms aid to Pakistan and now, Saudi Arabia.
Voters don't want a politician, they want a person that sees more black and white, instead of a field of grey.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at July 31, 2007 3:48 PM
At the risk of being branded a controversial new-con, Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-CO, is as 'black and white' as one can get. His record speaks for itself: http://www.teamtancredo.com
Voters should take a serious look at this patriotic statesman.
I think Fred Thompson is the best option, even though he has not announced his candidacy yet. He's spoken about Hirsi Ali in a way that makes it clear he understand the nature of Islam. He advocates for solving our border problems, separate from dealing with other aspects of immigration. Here is a generic youtube.com link for him:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fred+thompson&search=
His videos are well worth watching. He's an real conservative, in the old-fashioned small "l" liberal way.
..but..but..we've told the iraqi parliament they
MUST work on legislation during the one month vacation they begin today..
Here's a Fred Thompson video that gets right to the point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0aMl1IvnRo
He gets it.
Hillary voted for the war. His anaylsis is flawed.
MP
"Unfortunately Gore and Kerry probably would have been even worse. I will be sorry to see the United States take in any Iraqi refugees."
No Gore would have been better. Why?
(1) He would not have invaded Iraq
(2) He would have been voted out after 2004 for screwing up after 9-11 which he would have done.
(3) The Republican party would have reformed with a group of better canidates.
(4) We would not be in Iraq today and thus no talk of Iraqi refugees.
(5) Saddam and Iran would be attacking each other for the 10,000 time instead.
Thus if Gore had won in 2000 today we would have had a strong Republican president in his 1st term instead of a faux republican who is competition with Carter as the worst president ever.
The greatest barrier to winning this war is the man sitting in the white house. If he were not in the equation the Dems would have flamed out on their own by now.
Comet - As H.L.Mencken used to respond to his critics: "You may be correct." It's hard to tell how Gore would have responded to 9-11. Would he have gone after Afghanistan? Would he have treated the jihadists as criminals rather than military enemies? We'll never know.
And Iraq could still get a lot worse before he is finished. I was appalled to read this :
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/489380,CST-EDT-novak30.article
The Turks do not want ANY independent Kurdish areas, and once this starts rolling they will not stop if/when US special forces have decapitated the PKK's structure for them.
Your Special forces soldiers tend to be thoughtful guys who may understand why Kurds who welcomed them in the past will see this as another terrible Bush family betrayal. And they may find themselves friendless in a dangerous place, as Kurds who otherwise do not approve of the PKK withdraw their support from US forces, fearing what the Turks will do to all Kurds once the PKK has been dealt with.
Kurdistan has been the most consistently peaceful part of post-war Iraq, and the area most likely to emerge for the rubble with some prospect of long-term stability, and now President Bush risks trashing everything that has been achieved there ? Words really do fail me.
"Thus if Gore had won in 2000 today we would have had a strong Republican president in his 1st term instead of a faux republican who is competition with Carter as the worst president ever." --from above
1) Gore certainly won the popular vote in 2000 and it is probable that he won the electoral college vote as well. But nobody seems to want to talk about the peculiarities of that election.
2) Gore may have actually acted on the intelligence that al Qaeda was planning something big in 2001, to the effect that the 9/11 attacks might have been averted. And Gore may not have alienated capable people like Richard Clarke, the guy who recommended keeping the focus on al Qaeda and leaving Iraq alone.
3) There is no competition between Carter and Bush in a battle for the bottom. Mr. Bush has imperiled the Republic as has no other president in history and has betrayed those who were foolish enough to put their trust in him in the first place.
For all of this, whether a president is a Democrat or a Republican is far less significant than if they have a moral compass to steer by. The West needs leaders that understand the value of what they lead, who understand that there are some things that money can't buy, like courage and nobility. We need a Cincinnatus, but have a Bush instead.
Ja! Gore vould haf ben better!!
"(1) He would not have invaded Iraq." O G-t forbid!! Da violence is wery, wery vrong! Ja. Let Saddam continue to build da nukes and pay da suicide bombers, and allow Saddam to get together with Khan from Pakistan to develop a sunni Nuke! Ja, dialogue and sipping cups o' tea is da way to go!!
"(2) He would have been voted out after 2004 for screwing up after 9-11 which he would have done." Heh? Remember -- dialogue, dialogue! Da UN! He would have been re-elected with ease!
"(3) The Republican party would have reformed with a group of better canidates." Like who?
"(4) We would not be in Iraq today and thus no talk of Iraqi refugees." Ja. Just a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq...with Saddam laughing his ass off...and threatening to sneak nukes into Europe and/or urban U.S. locales, and then blackmail the country. Saddam says, "Let into the U.S. 1 million Iraqis or else Omaha, NB goes up in smoke." Ja. the power of dialogue.
"(5) Saddam and Iran would be attacking each other for the 10,000 time instead." Not at all, they'd be working together to plan the destruction of the United States.
"I think Fred Thompson is the best option, even though he has not announced his candidacy yet. He's spoken about Hirsi Ali in a way that makes it clear he understand the nature of Islam."
He understands the nature of Islam, and then appoints folks like Spence Abraham to his head his campaign committee?
I'm not exactly sure what Fred understands, but with guys like Spence around he is sending mixed signals...
Anyone who takes his shoes off when going to a mosque and tells people that Islam is a 'RoP' is one of them and no longer one of us.
I normally don't agree with US Democrats on anything at all except about impeachment of Bush. Can this guy not be removed from the office before he runs the whole world into the ground? Everything he's been doing is against his own country. A million of Muslim Iraqis in US? Good luck. You'll have your Kosovo sooner than you think.
Bush will leave office despised by the left and right.
Plato on democracy: 'A charming form of government for a variety of disorders'.
I voted for Bush twice and even sent him $25 for the ‘04 election. I can’t make it through more than one minute of his speeches anymore. The thing that gets to me is his self-righteousness. His emotional crutch has become that he sees himself as a man of principle, spreading freedom and democracy. But his assumption that mankind is inherently good is just wrong.
He gets to sleep better at night and we have to pick up the pieces. It is supposed to be the other way around.
One-man, one-vote democracies always fail. Democracy is Plato’s day involved 3,000 eligible voters in a population of 200,000. The Republic our Founding Fathers established allowed lien-free landowning men to elect representatives. What we have today is unsustainable. Bush will be known as the man who tried to spread democracy throughout the world, only to lose it at home.
The failure mechanism of the First American Republic will be bankruptcy. We’ll lose many of our freedoms in round two. We deserve it.
Though I prefer Tancredo-Hunter, I think a combo Guiliani-Romney will win.
Because the Dems have nothing.
No plans. No vision. No security ideas.
I've been right since Jimmy Carter (and I really hated that one).
Weakness is not attractive.
J.S.
You need to look at this site more often. You know learn the differences between sunni and shia. The difference between good strategy and bad. etc etc...
Hell the Iranians are happy...we created a greater Shia-Land for them with our own tax money!
Also the Iranians are about to get a nuke and what is George going to do about it? Nothing. He already made the same deal that Clinton made with North Korea and thus folded his hand there.
So what do we have after almost 8 years of G.W.
(1) Iraq does not have a nuke but is now part of a Greater Iran
(2) Iran is going to get a nuke
(3) North Korea has a nuke
Wow! Looks like AL Gore was president! My Bad!
greatcometof1577
Been over this over and over and over again.
Yeah, so Gore would have given Saddam nukes. Wow. big accomplishment. Speculations are such that one can ALWAYS imagine a far worse case scenario under Gore -- that's becuase it's under the realm of "speculation" -- not reality.
All three of your "points" have been mentioned over and over and over again by myself and others. And it's not "North Korea has a nuke" -- it's North Korea has nukes...that's plural...and as to who's to blame for North Korea's acquiring nukes -- well, you can also (if need be) look to Clinton. Iraq is not yet officially part of a Greater Iran. The southern portion may be headed in that direction...as I have mentioned ad nauseum. And, yes, in all likelihood Iran will get a nuke -- and nobody -- especially not any Dhimmicrat will stop them.
So no "news" here -- same old, same old.
Thompson's first appointment, Spencer Abraham
this is fighting Islamic Jihad?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/07/jihad_fred_fred.html
Nick Danger (Third Eye)-
"Thompsons first appointment, Spencer Abraham...?"
Thompson's camp meant to hire Robert Spencer, but, thanks to a poor typist...
(For want of a nail, the shoe was lost.- etc.)
I would say Bush needs to be declared an enemy of state and imprisioned under his anti-terrorism laws.
Why? Because about two months ago, I finally realized that Bush has been selling out the USA to the Muslim world. I originally thought Bush was just an idiot, but then it dawned on me that Bush is not fighting Islam, he is promoting it.
Bush is a traitor to the USA and needs to be removed from office. Of course, that would leave Dick Cheney then Nancy Peloski. Not sure which is the lesser evil.
Ignorance is what promotes and propels global jihad.
And unfortunately, the Bush Administration suffers from severe ignorance concerning Islam (in addition to myopia).
With Fred Thompson showing an enormous error in judgement appointing S Abraham as campaign chief, I can no longer support him. The piece at DebbieSchlessel blog, linked above convinced me.
All others, except Tancredo, repeat the Bush mantra.
Alaskan says this:
"Voters will rally around a person that is willing to LOSE (not win) the election based on their conservative stance that is unpopular in the media and the political correct circles."
I think Newt understands the above the best of all. But he his is a strong supporter of the Democracy Project in Iraq, which tells me he doesn't really understand Islam.
Anyone with a "C" grade in University, Democrat or Republican is not smart enough to be President. Only our best should be considered, not people who are just popular like Bush.
With 300 million people surely there are some really smart people. Wise too.
J.S.
True
However why does Bush always have to say "Our moderate muslim friends...Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan" which if we were to look at American dead over the last 10 years I would suspect that a majority are due to those three nations. Why are they our "muslim friends" and Iran, Syria and at one time Iraq our "muslim enemies"? I mean the folks who are killing the majority of our people seem to get "dates" in the rose garden but those muslim enemies become members of "Trilogy of Evil" or "Mal tres unos" or whatever neat phrase they come up with this week. When will it get through his thick skull that we have no such friends...that Saudi Arabia is as bad as Iran if not worse.
Jeeeze...when will the people we lost on 9-11 be avenged? The people who did that live in Pakistan and Arabia...We have Ummah problem not a state problem.
I guess those of you commenting at JW have not seen this on Fred Thompson!!! Comments welcome!
American Congress for Truth- Debbie Schlussel
Jihad Spence: Fred Thompson's Pan-Islamist Campaign Manager
My Dear Members,
He hasn't entered the Presidential race yet, but Fred Thompson, yesterday, showed us why he's the scariest Republican Presidential candidate. And maybe the scariest of both parties.
Don't believe Thompson's claim that he understands the Islamist jihadist threat to America. His announcement, yesterday, of his choice of Spencer Abraham as campaign manager, told us everything we need to know. Although Abraham, of Lebanese descent, is a Christian, he is a career water carrier for Islamists of the most extremist stripe and made that the cornerstone of his failed, one-term Senate career and equally lousy tenure as Energy Secretary.
Spencer Abraham: Former Bush Energy Secretary, Current Pan-Islamist & Fred Thompson Campaign Manager
As a conservative--but more important, as an American concerned about the future of this country in the face of a terrorist threat--Thompson's choice of Spencer Abraham was the final nail in the coffin for me in opposing Fred Thompson's quest for the White House.
I know Spencer Abraham. He wrote one of my recommendations for law school. And the Spencer Abraham that I and all of America have since experienced is bad news for everyone except CAIR, ADC, MPAC, ISNA, and all Islamists who want to endanger America.
In 2003, I wrote the definitive column on Spencer Abraham a/k/a Spence a/k/a Edward Spencer Abraham (which was quoted in The Washington Post), and I re-publish it below, with several additions I've made, updating it. At the time Spence was still Energy Secretary, but he left to become a lobbyist for Islamist countries.
As a Senator, he took marching orders from James Zogby of the pan-Islamist Arab American Institute, opposing profiling of Arabs, the use of secret evidence against Muslims (at the behest of Muslim groups), attempting to repeal the Clinton counterterrorism package, refusing to fund computer tracking of student and other foreign aliens, giving millions in our tax money right to Hezbollah, and putting CAIR on the map on Capitol Hill (taking the group's officials around to meet other Senators and Members of Congress). He took campaign contributions from the relatives of Hezbollah-backed top Lebanese officials after he got the group millions in our tax money.
Spence was one of only two Senators in the entire U.S. Senate who refused to sign a letter calling on President Clinton to condemn Palestinian terrorism and Yasser Arafat. This was at the height of a series of homicide bombings in Israel in 1999 and 2000.
As Energy Secretary, he gave top secret tours of nuclear facilities, as well as detailed information on how we secure them to Muslim nations who are our enemies. And he gave out undue post-9/11 awards to Al-Qaeda money-launderers . . . at the White House. The money launderers were raided by U.S. Customs Service agents.
After he left the Bush cabinet, Spence became a lobbyist for Mid-Eastern Muslim countries that practice the Arab boycott of Israel and don't really like us too much either. He took their money and until the Thompson race, did their bidding.
Do you really support a guy, Fred Thompson, who picked this man to head up his team? Either Thompson is clueless about Abraham, which should immediately disqualify him for the White House and frighten all of us about how he makes decisions. Or he knows about Abraham, and went with him anyway. Just as bad.
If you want to say no to jihad, you WILL say NO to Fred Thompson. He chose, and now we must choose against him:
JIHAD SPENCE: Bush's Dangerous Energy Secretary is Now Fred Thompson's Campaign Manager
Since the Blackout of 2003, he's gotten lots of TV face time. But should U.S. energy policy be entrusted to Spencer Abraham?
In 2000, President Bush said his Cabinet would "look like America," nominating Abraham, the defeated Lebanese-American Senator from Michigan, to Energy Secretary--part of the Bush strategy targeting the Arab vote.
But was this political strategy in the best interest of the country? Abraham's record suggests otherwise.
In the two years since 9/11, Abraham did absolutely nothing to improve our precarious electric power situation.
That would be bad enough.
But, since 9/11, Abraham continued a controversial UN-sponsored program allowing foreign visitors from countries on the State Department terrorist list to tour U.S. nuclear reactors. A course sponsored by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, taught by U.S. nuclear weapons lab security personnel, gives tours of Nuclear Regulatory Commission facilities and teaches participants from 57 countries--including Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia--security techniques employed at American nuclear sites. "They were teaching them to black out systems, which they could use against us at labs," an official told a popular newssite. This was reported on extensively by investigative reporter Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration."
The Clinton Administration taught the course to foreign representatives, too. But that was pre-9/11. In the post-9/11 era, Abraham irresponsibly continued it, despite protests.
Then there's Jamal Barzinji. Abraham enlisted him to find parties who helped and reached out to Muslims after 9/11, with Abraham hosting an awards ceremony for them. Problem is, Barzinji is an officer and/or director in SAFA Trust, Mar-Jac Poultry, and International Institute for Islamic Thought, all raided by Customs in March 2002 for laundering over $1.7 billion to Al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad (through University of South Florida terrorist professor and Islamic Jihad founder and frontman, Sami Al-Arian).
More troubling is Abraham's Senate record, ignored by his former Senate colleagues in an easy confirmation hearing.
Should a Senator who deliberately endangered national security for Arab/Muslim votes and campaign money be entrusted to oversee U.S. energy policy and access?
Abraham's frightening national security record included:
Liberal immigration policy, including lax foreign visitor tracking, at the behest of Arab/Muslim groups; Tried to End Profiling, Secret Evidence Use Against Terrorists
Abraham was Senate Immigration Subcommittee Chairman through the end of 2000. Abraham routinely caved to the demands of Arab/Muslim leaders, such as the Arab American Institute's James Zogby, on national security matters, especially immigration.
"Ever since (I first met) him, Abraham has been coming to us and giving advice, support and the benefits of his leadership," Zogby told The Detroit News.
And taking Zogby's advice, too.
Abraham actively worked to delay computer systems to track foreign visitors, which Arab/Muslim groups, including Zogby's, strongly opposed. 1996 immigration law required computerized entry and exit tracking of all temporary visas, but was gutted by Abraham and other legislators. They refused to allocate money for the program and delayed its full implementation until 2005. In 2000, Abraham, as Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, delayed implementation of other requirements of the 1996 immigration measure, including university-assisted enforcement student visa laws and collection of fees from foreign students to pay for computer tracking.
These programs might have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks. But Abraham desperately craved the Arab/Muslim vote in Michigan.
Abraham also sponsored and pushed for the repeal of the use of secret evidence against terrorists, a vital portion of the Clinton counterterrorism package. He also sought to outlaw profiling of Arabs and Muslims by federal law enforcement.
Foreign aid funding for Hezbollah, rewarded by pseudo-foreign campaign contributions
In July 2000, Abraham sought over $268 million in tax-funded USAID grants for Hezbollah terrorist-controlled Southern Lebanon, at Arab American Institute's Zogby's request. Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hezbollah, has targeted and murdered many Americans. Millions in similar USAID grants (which have scant strings and accountability attached) to Afghanistan were misspent on Taliban terrorist activities. Abraham enlisted Michigan Republican Congressman Joe Knollenberg, on the House International Relations Committee, to push the questionable aid package in the House. They ended up obtaining $86 million, which went straight to Hezbollah and which was never tracked thereafter. They knew this, and that's why they and Zogby sought the money for their Hezbollah friends.
Abraham and Knollenberg were repaid for their efforts, receiving thousands in campaign contributions from Nijad Fares, the Houston-based greencard-holding son of Syrian-backed Lebanese Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares.
Soft on terrorism
Abraham was one of only two U.S. Senators who refused to sign an October 2000 letter to President Clinton condemning terrorist acts by Yasser Arafat and the P.L.O.
Abraham led the nearly successful June 2001 attempt to reverse the use of classified evidence against terrorists, sponsoring the legislation at the behest of Islamist groups, including the American Muslim Association (AMA) and the American Muslim Political Coordination Council (AMPCC), both headed by Agha Saeed.
In July 1999, Abraham wrote to Saeed, AMA, and AMPCC asking their support: "Your efforts are truly needed in the political arena. . . . You can truly make a difference in the political and policy arenas, and I remain committed to helping you achieve that goal."
But Saeed openly praised Palestinian terrorism as "armed resistance" and appeared at lectures and events sponsored by Hamas front groups, including one panel, in which he was joined by the indicted Al-Arian, entitled: "Zionism: A Racist and Colonialist Ideology." AMA-sponsored events featured these exhortations: "The trees and the stones will say, oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him!" "Victory comes from Allah and Hezbollah is our model." "Hear that, Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas."
Given Spencer Abraham's record of kowtowing to Arab, Muslim, and foreign interests on virtually every national security issue, his hegemony at Energy is disturbing. He should control no form of power--political or electric.
By Debbie Schlussel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Congress for Truth
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
member@americancongressfortruth.org
http://www.americancongressfortruth.org
Michael Cromartie, chairman of the group and an appointee of President Bush, said reports indicate that nearly half of Iraq's Christians have already fled the country.
What you failed to note is that the other half, like the Iraqi Christian I spoke to today who risks his life working inside the Green Zone in Baghdad, are only here because they cannot afford to leave. It costs thousands of dollars to be smuggled to a neighboring country; when they try to leave legally they are turned back at the borders.
"Thompsons first appointment, Spencer Abraham...?"
Thompson's camp meant to hire Robert Spencer, but, thanks to a poor typist...
--profitsbeard
He would have been better off selecting Spencer Tracy, a fellow actor, admittedly deceased, but very good in "State of the Union". Or Edmund Spencer, author of The Faerie Queene, who could really punch up those listless speeches of his.
Anyone but this Spencer.
I assumed Thompson was surely intending Robert
for his running mate, a clear case of RSVP.
It's late, but I need to get this message out.
Bush's latest move, to send advanced arms and fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, is a terrible mistake. There's no telling where they will end up. Selling Israel even more advanced equipment is not the answer. This scenario will be upping the ante in a very explosive region. It will expose the population of Israel to advanced weapons of war. Whom does this serve? I'm afraid Bush (I voted for him) is working for the interests of large armaments manufacturers who will reap a fortune off this deal. Does he expect the Saudis to stop Iran with these weapons?
Write to your congressperson to stop the plan to give Saudi Arabia advanced weapons!
Profitsbeard
I believe that Rudy is the only one who can beat HRC. As for the VP, I think he's likely to pick someone like Tancredo, who can attract the Conservative borders crowd to his side. I loathe McCain and am happy that he's going down in flames.
I believe that Rudy is the only one who can beat HRC. As for the VP, I think he's likely to pick someone like Tancredo, who can attract the Conservative borders crowd to his side.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 1, 2007 2:06 AM
Just my $0.02 on Rudy. Rudy is good when confronted by hostilities. However, unlike Tom Tancredo, Rudy does not think deep and far enough. If he does, he surely does not go far enough. For example, Rudy may (giving Rudy the benefit of doubt) call to have the Borderr Petrol agents released, he has not done what Tom Tancredo has done:
"Late last week, the House of Representatives approved by overwhelming voice vote my amendment to forbid the Bush Administration from using any funds to enforce the judgment or sentences imposed by a federal judge against former Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos. My amendment will force the release of Compean and Ramos….and it strikes a real blow for “We the People!”
As you know, Compean and Ramos were prosecuted for doing their jobs in protecting our borders. My amendment sent a clear message to the Bush Administration -- put the pressure back on criminals who smuggle drugs across our border rather than on the people who protect us from them!
This vote was not just a victory for Compean and Ramos – it is another big summer victory for our immigration reform movement! Thank you for all you have done to help us keep the Compean and Ramos case front and center on the national agenda these past few months!"
Tom Tancredo, unlike the rest of congress, is an active, nay proactive congressman, who has stood clearly on the right side of sensitive issues like illegal immigration and national security. One may argue that Tom Tancredo is controversial, but then, who would you rather bet on? A controversial patriot who stands up for America or a smooth politician who stands on the fence of politically correctness? Think about this, for a moment....
But, as you suggest, if Rudy beats HRC and picks Tom for VP, it is good for America and so, good enough for me.
Are the Media Misreporting Thompson Addition of Spencer Abraham to Campaign?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/07/30/media-misreporting-thompson-addition-spencer-abraham-campaign
Weyrich, who foresees a Hillary victory, has accurately predicted the outcomes of presidential elections for decades with only two exceptions.
I remember Weyrich after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. He was so grieved that he pronounced American politics irredeemably corrupt, and urged conservative Christians to stay out of them. And then two years later....
They may be Bush's policies, but those policies come to him from Jooooooooooooooos, no doubt.
;)
Anyone who can get hold of a copy (without buying it) shoud read "The Prince", the fawning new biography of Prince Bandar Bush. Despite the author, who attended RAF Cranwell with Bandar, and bends over backward to show Bandar as a good chap, the book describes how Bandar has bought the allegiance of U.S. presidents, senators and congressmen since the Carter administration.
MP
Why should we not buy it? I would be interested to read the book (unlikely my rinky dink library would carry it). Is it not a critical analysis or is it just written by a shill?
Weeks ago I read that Guiliani enlisted a team of foriegn policy experts. From the article:
"Senior foreign policy team members include Norman Podhoretz and Senator Bob Kasten. Other team members include Steve Rosen, Senior Defense Advisor; Martin Kramer, Senior Middle East Advisor; S. Enders Wimbush, Senior Public Diplomacy Advisor; Peter Berkowitz, Senior Statecraft, Human Rights and Freedom Advisor; and Kim R. Holmes, a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor"
The entire article at http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48726822_rudy_giuliani_rudy_giuliani_giuliani_announces_foreign_policy_team_members
If anyone knows about any this group I would be interested to know. Maybe they have a different spin on the WOT and can better inform Rudy about Islam. So far Rudy is backing the Bush agenda.
More scandals are following the Clintons - check out www.hillcap.org
It will lead you to other websites as to what is going on from there.
I don't want either Obama or Clinton in office - even as Senators. Their idea of conducting wars is wet your finger, raise it and see which way the winds are blowing. Today they want to attack this guy - and tomorrow they want to attack someone else. And if either are like Bill - they will go and help the muslims slaughter more Christians as he did in Bosnia/Kosovo.
Oh, and I should add that they will send out troops here and there - while voting to cut their fundings. Go check Obama's voting record.
And then the way the Democrats like cutting the intelligence agencies' funding too - it is positively scarrey.
Prince Abdulaziz name was found in PCs in Bosnia when we were there during the Clinton years. All over the radical muslim's PC files, I should add. He is involved in the radicals in Eastern Europe and that sty of violence that it has become.
"Conservative thinker and strategist Paul Weyrich sees a Republican political disaster in 2008 because of Iraq. "I believe that the Democrats, most likely with Senator Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY) as the nominee, will win," he says. "The Republicans, regardless of who they nominate, will lose because of the war in Iraq. Voters want to punish the Republicans for Iraq."
Shows a error of thought.
The PEOPLE of the U.S.A. will suffer if we fail to understand we are all in the same ship, and to elect a "party" to punish another will not solve a single issue, in fact it may allow more death and destruction here, against ALL who call the states their country.
The enemy is islam, not your political party neighbor across the street.
greatcometof1577,
Yes -- the Saudis (along with all the other Arab states) are clearly enemies of the United States. I believe that the reason Bush keeps referring to them as "our friends" is (in a word) "politics"...along with the oil problem. (I have a hunch that if one had a magic wand, could wave it, and BINGO, all oil dependency would be gone -- I think Bush would not hesitate to tell the Arabs where to shove it...unfortunately, there are no "magic wands." So Bush is left sucking up to Saudis.) (Also, why Iraq under Saddam, Syria and Iran are considered, outright, "enemies" of the U.S.-- I believe it's because they don't (or refuse) to play the double game. Saddam was hostile and "in your face", also aggressive and would start wars or invade countries on whims -- Syria is similar, takes over Lebanon, doesn't put on a "nice" face for the benefit of the United States; and certainly the same can be said of Iran -- the Prez of Iran defiantly spits at the States at every opportunity. The Saudis, on the other hand, are much more "charming" and willing to do "business" with the United States, pretend to be "friends." the same beguiling duplicity is evident in Mubarek of Egypt and Musharraf of Pakistan.
I began to have doubts about Bush when he gave that Rose Garden speech on June 24, 2002 -- in which he promised that the United States of America "will support the creation of a Palestinian state." yeah. real smart. (this was when Bush was in the full flush of "democratizing" the Middle East...I hear that analysts now believe that Bush has abandoned hopes for democratizing the Middle East and now it's back to the old style politics -- that's propping up friendly dictatorships in the region...thus we get Condi offering sweet arms deals to Arabs. (which I find an utter travesty.) But then when you look around -- really, who is there that understands? Would a Chirac have been better? Would a democrat (those imbeciles) been better? I don't think so. Just one huge mess.
The Title: Bush Policies Promote Global Jihad.
Yes, and most Americans are more than likely clueless to this fact, unfortunately. There isn't enough political demand for change and thus change won't happen.
Interestingly, Obama says he will go after
terrorists in Pakistan, if he is elected President.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/01/obama-would-take-war-on-terror-into-pakistan/
"“It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”"
Such bold comments here.
And finally, I think you all will enjoy this cute little video.
What is Islam and Who Are Muslims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j41E8DN7yLA
It is just so gawrsh dern cute, I could cry!!!!!
I especially enjoyed the comments written on the first page of the discussion.
(PS: I thought music was forbidden in Islam)
Islam may be the poison ivy of the 21st Century. One can simply try to avoid places where it proliferates; one can assiduously refrain from coming into direct contact or trampling it. By doing nothing to dissuade its proliferation, you will actually ensure that it will flourish and expand into new places. Eventually, poison ivy will colonize the entire planet with such ferocity that it will be difficult to avoid it.
When this occurs, poison ivy will be a rampant, daily, constant irritant interferring with your quiet enjoyment of your property. It will affect every home, every school, every church, every market place, every town hall, every state legislature, every national government, every region on the entire planet.
What is our choice given the odious, irritating, even toxic effect poison ivy has on the human condition? Avoid it or take a proactive stance? Exterminate it where it attempts to take root? Attempt to peacefully coexist with this aggressive entity? Deny that it is poisonous? Make excuses for what it is, what it does? Outlaw speech designed to label it odious, irritating or toxic? Punish people for thoughtcrimes against poison ivy? Launch an expensive PR campaign to elevate its profile, normalize its effect, convince our citizenry that poison ivy is completely acceptable and even desirable. Jail and fine those who publish, demonstrate or even beg to discuss the issue of poison ivy vs. society's interests?
Why would a civilized society encourage, even mandate tolerance for poison ivy at the expense of the health and welfare of its people? Where poison ivy threatens the rights of average citizens, even jeopardizes a nation's security, it should no longer be tolerated, protected or excused for the threat that it represents to rational citizens.
From Pascale Warda's testimony:
Since the Iraqis were freed from dictatorship by American forces, $52 billion dollars have been spent by the Iraqi and American administrations in Iraq, a large amount of which was spent on security. Unfortunately, the result is what we see today, a violent and unstable Iraq. Over 30 churches have been destroyed, priests have been kidnapped, killed, or beheaded, and the Christians have been systematically targeted for persecution by Islamic fundamentalists. A 14-year-old boy was crucified in Basra. A one-year old baby was roasted and delivered to his mother's doorstep, on a bed of rice. Just last week, a young boy was gunned down by Kurdish fighters wearing the Iraqi National Guard uniform in the Nineveh Plains. The stories are many, and seemingly endless, each day bringing fresh tragedy to this helpless Christian minority.
At the end of the day, this is a testimony to the barbarity of Iraqi Muslims. Have they been worth all the money spent on them? No! What benefit are they to the planet? None! That is why Islam has to be consigned to the dustbin of history, because wherever it becomes a majority, these atrocities against non-Muslims are guaranteed to happen. We can see why Charles Martel resisted the Muslim invaders and why Pelayo started the 769-years-long Reconquista. Without these, and victories at Vienna for Graf von Salm in 1529 and Jan Sobieski in 1683, this might well be the fate of Western European infidels not only today but also for the past 300 years or more. The truth has to be told by our media, and it has to be got through to people that these atrocities happen, not because of the invasion of Iraq, but because of Islam and its cruel and barbaric teachings. Islam cannot create a civilization because it is base, uncivilized and remains rooted in the 7th century. Wherever it predominates or goes, so does death and destruction on an epic scale. There is hardly a Muslim country on the planet that has seen the murder of less than a million of their own subjects or nationals of other countries over the last 20, 30 or 50 years, at the hands of the bloodthirsty savages who rule them. There have ben 270 million plus victims of Jihad murdered in cold blood - and that is the non-Muslims (it would have been far more but for those heroes mentioned and many others like Hunyadi, de la Valette, Holger Danske, Richard the Lionheart etc), so Islam itself must have the blood in total of anywhere between 500 million and 750 million souls on its hands over the last 14 centuries. And the worst thing is - we could destroy Islam within a century if we strip away the political correctness which engulfs us and put all the resources available to us into getting rid of that death cult - militarily (topple regimes like Iran and target hate-peddling clerics, hanging judges, mullahs and imams for termination), economic strangulation and the withdrawal of aid, food and medicines to Islamic countries, the denial of technology to those said countries, and by a massive truthtelling campaign against that religion - spell out how it treats women, gays and non-Muslims, describe it as barbaric, savage and cruel, encourage apostasy, give a massive airing of the quotes of Winston Churchill, John Wesley, John Quincy Adams, Servier, Hilaire Belloc etc and expose the cruelty of its murderous and paedophilic headchopping prophet. It is time to commit ourselves to the decline and fall of that wicked cult for the good of our descendants.
For the record - a few days ago I posted the following letter to an acquaintance who was about to visit a senior government official. For some reason, my letter, and the comment approving it by another poster, was deleted. Trying again - Surak
The first item is the necessity of properly understanding the war we are in, which in turn determines our goals. To understand it correctly, we must name it correctly. Even the name, the “Global War against Islamic Terrorism”, is inadequate and misleading. To understand why, consider the analogy in World War 2, which would be the “Global War against Japanese Sneak-Attacks” (and German Submarine Attacks). We weren’t at war with certain tactics; we were at war with certain societies, namely Germany, Italy and Japan. It was necessary to defeat those societies and cause their surrender in order to end their attacks.
Today, we are not at war with terrorism. There is a jihad taking place against the entire non-Muslim world. Terrorism and other forms of violence are only one means to the enemy’s goal, which is the establishment of Shari’a law throughout the world in a unified Caliphate. This will enable fulfillment of Sura 9 of the Qur’an: our conversion to Islam, our submission as dhimmis and payment of the jizya tribute tax, or our death. While jihadist actions are recorded on Robert Spencer’s website JihadWatch, its sister site DhimmiWatch records the equally important tactics of intimidation that are being used to destroy our postmodern, relativistic, multicultural society and replace it with seventh century Arabian society.
We must acknowledge this total war in the war’s name, which must identify the society that is waging the war against us. Thus I call our present war the “War Against Militant Islam”. If you object that this sounds dangerously close to saying that we are in a war against Islam itself, well – maybe we are; that depends on the actions of the other side. You may object that there are good Muslims, to which I respond, of course there are! There were good Germans and Japanese during World War 2, but it was necessary to defeat their societies. It may be possible for good Muslims to redefine their religion in terms of its Meccan tolerance, rather than its Medinan jihadism. In order to create an opening for the tolerant Muslims, it is necessary to defeat utterly the militant Muslims.
However, let us not repeat the mistake we made in referring to a recent military campaign as “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. We are not at war to benefit our enemy, but to insure our own survival against a mortal enemy who is willing to fight to the death.
Remember, we are not at war against a tactic, but against a society – a 1300-year-old war that has never stopped. If you don’t want your wives confined in their houses wearing bur’qas, the enemy must be identified and defeated. This enemy, by the way, isn’t merely the Wahabists, but also anyone else who wants to engage in jihad to establish a global Caliphate in which Shari’a is strictly enforced.
An oft-quoted figure is the guess that about 10% of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims are militant. We know from the recent Pew survey, however, that even in America, the land that allegedly assimilates Muslims better than Europe, that at least 26% of Muslims find homicide bombings to be acceptable in some cases. If a similar proportion held worldwide, that would amount to about 300 million militant Muslims. I do not call them radical, because we non-Muslims do not have the authority to define what is and what is not normative Islam. The number 300 million impresses me as much larger than the combined populations of Germany, Italy and Japan during World War 2. I am sorry to say that President Bush has failed miserably in describing the scope of the threat facing all non-Muslim civilizations. An agenda of democracy – one man, one vote, one time – will not transform Muslim societies, or more importantly, ensure our survival.
The second item is President Bush’s continuing pressure on Israel in order to appease militant Muslims. The latter have made clear that they will be satisfied with no compromise or “two-state solution”, but only with the complete destruction of Israel. In contrast to the President’s ringing words of September 20, 2001, however, he has broken his campaign promise to move the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; he has pressured Israel to yield strategic territory and border crossings to terrorists; he has pressured Israel to release terrorist murderers, who have often gone on to commit additional terrorist murders; he has provided American funds and even ammunition to terrorist groups (and as Diana West points out, that makes us state sponsors of terrorism); he has hosted a terrorist leader in the White House who continues to call for the murder of Israelis.
These actions of President Bush constitute a shameful betrayal of America’s closest ally in the world, a tiny nation beleaguered by genocidal neighbors. (At the UN, Israel votes with America more than 90% of the time; the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau vote with us more than 80% of the time; and every other country votes with us less than 60% of the time.) While many excuse this behavior by pointing to Israeli political choices, I would like to point out that there is a strong impulse in Israeli society to please America, even if it requires endangering Israeli lives or even sacrificing Israeli lives so that the American president can maintain friendly relations with the terrorist-promoting House of Saud.
Michael Ledeen gave a speech a few years ago in which he identified the Axis of Evil’s Middle Eastern branch as consisting of not only Iran and Iraq, as the President said, but also Saudi Arabia (source of most of the hijackers of 9/11, funder of Wahabist mosques and literature around the world) and Syria (home of numerous terrorist organizations; for some reason we inexplicably maintain diplomatic relations with them). I might have added Pakistan as a cause of concern, because of their nuclear weapons which will eventually fall into someone else’s hands at the time of President Musharaf’s death; and possibly even Egypt as well, one of the main intellectual centers for jihad.
Unfortunately, Cliff Kincaid does tell the sobering truth.
End of Term report time.
a) Iraqi Infidels. Goodbye. You've been in Iraq longer than "The Price is Right" has been on TV. However, Iraq is now a fourishing democracy and the Iraqi people have spoken. They wish you all to die. So do everyone a favour and stop whinging. You're making the glorious "Iraqi Freedom" proponents look bad. Bush couldn't give a crap and the US Army is too busy defending the Iraqi politicians -Islamist to a T they are too- in the Green Zone. Get the picture? Don't you realise that it's now the era of the "coffee table Christian". They want to be pious and holy on a Sunday but couldn't give a 4X about their "brothers and sisters" around the World. Just ask the Serbs for more info.
Bottom line. No one gives a crap. So shut up and die.
b) Iran Congratulations are in order. Your wildest dreams have indeed come true. Iraq, the only power that could keep you honest, is now a fractured chaotic Hell. In a couple of years the oil producing south will be in your full control and daily, your ammo and money is making "The Great Satan" a bumbling, dim, flatfooted fool. And all without losing a single soldier.
c)The US taxpayer Shut up and keep on paying your taxes you bunch of schmucks. We've got hundreds of bridges to build, schools to construct and billions of miles of roads to repair. And none are in the US. How about that for a kick in the balls. Stop complaining about your kids crappy schools or the shitty old age home for your parents. No one cares about you.
Bottom lineShut up, go back to the office and have a heart attack.
d)The U.S. of A Remember all that power you once had? You know, it'd slowly been build up by guys like Nixon and Bush senior? The political clout to make people listen? The military power, the economic muscle? The goddamn respect? Well that's all history now. It's all being pissed away in some god forsaken desert. And your cities are drowning and your bridges are falling over.
Bottom lineFrom top of the class genius to biggest dickhead in just over a decade. That takes some doing.
Forget this sober reality, let's have a beer.
That last line or so should've read
"Bottom line From top of the class genius to biggest sucker in just over a decade. That takes some doing."
Sorry